- From: Dave Hodder <dmh@dmh.org.uk>
- Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2008 15:14:06 +0000
- To: public-html-comments@w3.org, whatwg@whatwg.org
Hello, The scope of the "license" link type in section 4.12.3 seems too narrow to me. It's presently described like this: Indicates that the current document is covered by the copyright license described by the referenced document. I think the word "copyright" should be removed, allowing other types of intellectual property licence to be specified as well. As a use case, take for example a piece of documentation that is Apache-licensed: <p>This piece of useful documentation may be used under the terms of the <a rel="license" ref="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0">Apache License, Version 2.0</a>. Please note that Example™ is a trademark of Example.com Enterprises.</p> The license link not only refers to copyright law, but also trademark law and patent law. On a related note, should the "copyright" keyword really be a synonym for "license"? They seem to have distinct purposes to me: <meta name=copyright content="Copyright 2009-2010 Example.com Enterprises"> <link rel=license href="http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0" type="text/html"> Thank you, Dave
Received on Saturday, 2 February 2008 15:14:27 UTC